The Madden v. Kentucky case in 1939 revolved around the constitutionality of a state tax law. The appellant, Madden, was an executor of an estate that included intangible personal property located outside Kentucky but owned by a resident within the state. He challenged Kentucky's right to impose inheritance taxes on this out-of-state property, arguing it violated both due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's taxation rights with Justice Stone delivering its opinion. The court ruled that as long as there is jurisdiction over either person or property subject to taxation within a state’s borders, then imposing such tax does not violate due process clause even if some part of taxed wealth is situated outside those borders. Furthermore, regarding violation of equal protection clause claim because other states also imposed similar taxes (double-taxation), court held that potential multiple taxation doesn't necessarily make a statute unconstitutional; rather it should be addressed through interstate cooperation or Congress intervention.

In the dissenting opinion for Madden v. Kentucky, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state tax on intangible property held outside of Kentucky violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that this ruling allowed states to impose taxes without providing any benefits or protections in return, which he believed was fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that such taxation did not result in double taxation because other states could choose not to tax their residents' out-of-state property; instead, he maintained it would inevitably lead to multiple burdens being placed on taxpayers who own properties across different jurisdictions. Finally, Justice Black expressed concern about potential abuses by states seeking additional revenue sources at the expense of non-residents' rights.